This August 20 article shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote

Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

* note to mods - I put this in Mid-South board because of the discussion of I-14 In Texas ans Louisiana, and the only new terrain interstate planned for I-14 at the moment in Mississippi appears to be from Natchez to I-55 (the remainder would overlap with I-55, I-20, and I-20/59). It doesn't fit "north" Mississippi but it goes well with the other I-14 discussion.

If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20. East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation.

If alternative #3 is selected, then I-14 would be OK, if a little convoluted, with the multiplex with I-59 from Laurel, MS northeast to Cuba, AL. A bit out of grid on the east end (Macon-Augusta) but, considering the more egregious grid-breaking in other locales, not completely obnoxious. And with alternative #4, it would be likely that the Meridian-Montgomery corridor would retain its original I-85 extension designation (with the addition of I-14, that would be really convoluted!).

Alternative #5: if that comes about, there will likely be pressure from SE Alabama (Dothan and vicinity) to extend the corridor eastward to serve that area. East from there would be speculative: Tallahassee or Albany could constitute possible routing choices; best such speculation remain a fictional exercise for the time being.

My thoughts: It'll probably make it to Laurel, but anything beyond that may be a pipedream; the US 80 corridor, if constructed, will be as part of a separate regional concept.

I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.

If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20. East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation.

One could route I-20 away from Birmingham and Atlanta using the southern route from Meridian to Augusta. The part of I-20 from Birmingham to Augusta then becomes an eastward extension of I-22. The part of I-20/59 between Meridian and Birmingham then just becomes I-59.

Logged

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20. East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation.

One could route I-20 away from Birmingham and Atlanta using the southern route from Meridian to Augusta. The part of I-20 from Birmingham to Augusta then becomes an eastward extension of I-22. The part of I-20/59 between Meridian and Birmingham then just becomes I-59.

Except for Atlanta & associated interests pissing & moaning about losing a "major" interstate, the above idea's not too shabby at all! Then I-14 could have its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59 and serve what it will without anyone worrying too much about issues east of Montgomery.

I would be very surprised if Louisiana ever broke ground to build one inch of I-14 in my lifetime. (of course I say the same thing about I-69 as well)

At this point, it's probably safe to say that LA's major concern will be I-49 -- particularly with the recent selection of the Shreveport in-city connector. Unless an E-W Alexandria bypass advances to the forefront on sheer political will from the area, any I-14 signage will likely be, in the near term, limited to "future corridor" BGS's along the divided portion of LA 28. Any work on that corridor -- or I-69 north of I-20 -- will be preliminary stuff -- likely only on paper -- until I-49 -- both the Shreveport connection and a substantial amount of the southern extension (at least to I-310) -- is at least well under way as far as actual route completion or late-stage construction is concerned. That's a priority -- as well it should be! It'll probably be decades until TX builds out their I-14 connection; and MS hasn't even chimed in regarding exactly how they plan to tackle such a route (particularly with their finances in a sling!). So, yes, there's little chance of seeing a bit of completed I-14 in LA in the first half of this century save any successful Alexandria-area bypass promotion effort. IMO, actual I-14 deployment will remain an all-Texas affair for quite some time!

I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.

I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.

Ahem.

I'd say the good judge is suffering from a military-industrial complex! (yeah, that phrase dates me!)

Anything east of I-45 (or I-69, not a lot of difference here) is strictly a speculative developmental concept, designed to draw potential businesses to the corridor zone by virtue of it being an Interstate corridor (and, putatively, able to attract foreign investment in such things as factories or distribution centers). The original I-14 concept -- which didn't include anything west of LA -- was specifically promoted as a method to bring business to an area largely devoid of employment opportunities. Latching on to the "connect-the-military-bases-dots" concept was a post-9/11 additional promotion ploy intended to bring regional folks with pro-military leanings into the fold of corridor backers. In essence the entire original I-14 corridor across the Deep South was formulated by a loose coalition of congresspersons, state and local legislators and officials from the target area, and various chambers of commerce spread from Louisiana to Georgia.

Ironically, the only place likely to see any actual I-14 deployment activity in the near term is Texas -- partially because there's much more actual distance between I-10 and I-20 in the central part of the state where a corridor might be sited, the state's record regarding getting projects under way (although completion to original plans might be questionable!), and the fact that enough folks along the potential corridor actually want it and are exercising whatever influence they have to get it done.

Given the 2005 Katrina disaster in New Orleans and much of southern Louisiana -- and magnified by Harvey's destruction as this is written -- the concept of a lateral connector far enough north to be out of the main floodplain but close enough to serve as an inter-corridor transfer point for northward evacuees may not be a bad idea -- particularly if I-14 could serve as an interim "staging area" in such an emergency to optimize the distribution of those temporarily fleeing the storm's effects. If it is built in TX the way its backers project, it would be an interesting "test bench" in the (inevitable) case of the next major regional storm disaster.

This August 20 article shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote

Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

This August 20 article shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote

Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015. Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version). Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).

They can dream all they want, but the reality is very unlikely. Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls. This corridor doesn't (and won't) even come close to the level of traffic necessary for tolls to be viable....not with a relatively uncongested I-20 to the north.

This August 20 article shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote

Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015. Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version). Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).

Now if they could just get AL and GA (possibly SC) on board with this plan, they'd be all set!

Yeah, the various I-69 routes in Texas total over 1000 miles of highway. Then there are corridors like US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo and US-69/75 headed North out of Dallas. Both of those are more worthy of further development and Interstate designation than the I-14 nonsense.

Yeah, the various I-69 routes in Texas total over 1000 miles of highway. Then there are corridors like US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo and US-69/75 headed North out of Dallas. Both of those are more worthy of further development and Interstate designation than the I-14 nonsense.

Well....under the current "system" (or lack thereof) regarding Interstate additions, the whole thing is relegated to a political process usually instigated by reasonably well-connected activists from a particular region; in the case of the I-69 "trident", this group was centered in the lower Rio Grande Valley; in the case of I-14, it was a string of similar groups arrayed from Midland/Odessa all the way across to Bryan/State College. With I-69 (and this was back in the early '90's), there had been a longstanding Houston-based effort to get an Interstate corridor established from Houston to either Shreveport or Texarkana; those groups, often dormant, "hooked up" with the Rio Grande Valley folks and formed the "Alliance for I-69 Texas", snagged a couple of Congresspeople from districts along the various proposed corridors, and, voila', the I-69, including the south TX "cluster", became reality. Eventually some level of funding became available, so over time bits & pieces of the corridor came into signed being. The I-14 folks are currently attempting to emulate this concept; their first move was getting the Belton-Copperas Cove freeway signed as I-14 as more or less a "foothold". I'm surprised folks in Wichita Falls, Childress, or other areas in the Red River region haven't attempted to foment similar activity around US 287 considering the existing stretches of freeway mileage along the eastern portion of that corridor.

For better or worse, that's the way these corridors are planned and occasionally actually constructed these days. TX interests, like those in NC (and IL back in the "good old days") have learned to manipulate and tweak the system to squirt out their pet projects; all they need to do is convince both U.S. legislators and state agencies that the project will produce both economic and political benefit (with the latter often being the factor that puts it over the top, so to speak). Absent a cohesive, comprehensive, and consistent alternative process (and "no-build" doesn't buy much in the way of votes or support) this methodology is likely to persist for at least the near term.

Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

This August 20 article shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote

Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015. Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version). Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).

Now if they could just get AL and GA (possibly SC) on board with this plan, they'd be all set!

Before LA can commit to anything related to this proposal, they better fund I-49 South and the Shreveport I-49 ICC and fix the I-10 BTR mess FIRST.

Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.